Node seems uncommonly sensitive to this, so let's write these functions
in a way that stays in sync and test this. See also
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/49585
This does incur a cost across all BoringSSL consumers that use these
functions: as a result of Node indiscriminately exposing every cipher,
we end up pulling more and more ciphers into these getters. But that
ship sailed long ago, so, instead, document that EVP_get_cipherby*
should not be used by size-conscious callers.
EVP_get_digestby* probably should have the same warning, but I've left
it alone for now because we don't quite have the same proliferation of
digests as ciphers. (Though there are things in there, like MD4, that
ought to be better disconnected.)
Change-Id: I61ca406c146279bd05a52bed6c57200d1619c5da
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/49625
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This may as well be computed from block_size. This reduces the
per-EVP_CIPHER_CTX memory usage slightly.
Update-Note: It doesn't look like anyone is reading into this field. If
they are, we can ideally fix it, or revert this if absolutely necessary.
Change-Id: Ieef9177bed1671efca23d4f94d3d528f82568fc6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/45884
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CVE-2021-23840
(Imported from upstream's 6a51b9e1d0cf0bf8515f7201b68fb0a3482b3dc1.)
This differs slightly from upstream's version:
- EVP_R_OUTPUT_WOULD_OVERFLOW didn't seem necessary when ERR_R_OVERFLOW
already exists. (Also since we use CIPHER_R_*, it wouldn't have helped
with compatibility anyway. Though there's probably something to be
said for us folding CIPHER_R_* back into EVP_R_*.)
- For simplicity, just check in_len + bl at the top, rather than trying
to predict the exact number of bytes written.
Update-Note: Passing extremely large input lengths into EVP_CipherUpdate
will now fail. Use EVP_AEAD instead, which is size_t-based and has more
explicit output bounds.
Change-Id: I31835c89dcdecb6b112828f57deb798dc7187db5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/45685
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Change-Id: I814f55742910c519e9b64aca1b15a4d754adc541
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/44944
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
David Benjamin
Adam Langley
Adam Langley